A Few Big Picture Thoughts on the Apple/Samsung Trial

As the world now knows, a jury in San Jose delivered Apple a rapid slam dunk verdict over its business rival (and partner), Samsung.

Tremendous analysis exploring all facets of the case has surfaced online, and I won't attempt to contribute to the detailed reporting undertaken by smart devoted followers of disparate areas such as law, technology and business. Personally, it was amazing consuming the wide-ranging resources covering the trial, and I can't recall a time with greater access to material.

That said, here are several big picture thoughts:

First, Apple is a company operating (at what seems to be) near the pinnacle of its ability from an intellectual property, innovation and operational perspective, building on the work of its legendary founder Steve Jobs. That is to say, Apple does not bring high-stakes litigation to trial, send it to a jury and come up on the short end. I do not see any reason to predict a discontinuation of this trend and expect Apple to continue to aggressively enforce its IP portfolio.

Second, and more important, the legal battle for control of the smart phone/mobile computing market between Apple and Samsung, culminating in last week's jury decision, has shone a much-needed spotlight on the current intellectual property/patent protection legal regime in the United States.

What made Apple's victory so (potentially) powerful is that  not only were certain of its utility patents found to be infringed, but the jury also concluded Samsung violated the iPhone's (but not iPad's) design patents.  Design patents protect the "look and feel" of the product, as opposed to specific software functionality.



(A brief US Patent & Trademark Office guide on the difference between utility and design patents, for those interested)

While many have criticized the jury for reaching a decision on such a complex matter in less than 3 days, it strikes me that their conclusion is a serious and fair one that upholds the current state of US law. The duty of a jury is to dispassionately apply the law as it exists to the facts of the case; in that context one can understand how the jury readily concluded that Samsung copied Apple's features and/or design. After all, Apple is the clear market leader and innovator, and US law allows for broad sweeping patent rights.

Stepping back, one has to acknowledge that there is a very real dissatisfaction with the current state of patent law. Detractors argue that patent applications are backed up, patent trolls clog the courts with frivolous claims, and innovation is stifled by the duration and scope of patent rights.

It would not surprise me to see opportunistic politicians leveraging the high-profile nature of the Apple verdict to push for patent reform. After all, when the judiciary continues to produce (arguably)unsatisfactory but correct results applying current law, the legislative branch has every right to step in and change the rules of the game.